|
|
| Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... (1157882) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by andy on Tue May 22 11:21:13 2012, in response to Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 23:00:30 2012. All of the armchair critics who have been responding to these posts fail to realize the complexity and difficulty of building ESA. Yes the 63d St. Tunnel was already there, completed. Connecting it to the LIRR at Harold involves building under Sunnyside Yard in spongy unstable soil, underpinning the BMT Astoria El, the IND subway under Northern Blvd., and the street itself. Harold will be rebuilt for the new connections under traffic, a tough feat in itself.On the Manhattan side the deep tunnel route was chosen because it won't disturb the warren of utility pipes and conduits underground, plus the subways below 60th Street, 53rd Street, and Lexington Ave. Existing Grand Central tracks can't be shared because of different third rail types. Buildings will not need underpinning. And Metro North did give up about ten yard tracks on the north side of its lower level to allow LIRR to build a separate concourse for its riders. As an aside, one side benefit is that subway riders will no longer have to share crowded trains with LIRR riders at Hunterspoint (7) or Penn (E, 1/2/3) who are travelling to the East Side now. And some eastern Queens residents bound for the East Side who now take buses to the 7 or E or F trains may elect to take a faster LIRR train to GCT. There is really no blueprint for a job like this - it's literally a once every 100 years project. So be patient and let it get done. The benefits will be worth it. |
|
|
|